10452626 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

Ex Parte de Heer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2013

10452626 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/452,626 06/02/2003 Arie Johannes de Heer A J deJeer 4-3 8471 46363 7590 03/07/2013 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ARIE JOHANNES DE HEER and RONALD DE MAN ____________ Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a method for reconfiguring a ring network in response to a link failure. Abstract. Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative of the invention (disputed limitations italicized): 1. A method for reconfiguring a ring network comprising a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of links to form said network, the method comprising, at one of said nodes: initiating reconfiguring of said one node in response to receipt of a network change message, NCM, received from an adjacent node; blocking the link over which the NCM was received; sending an NCM to the other adjacent node; reconfiguring address information in said one node by at least partially flushing address information in said one node; flushing any old queued messages from said one node; transmitting a reconfigured message, RM, to said other adjacent node in response to completion of said flushing any old queued messages; and de-blocking said link in response to a RM received from said adjacent node. 5. A network node comprising: at least one input port; at least one output port; Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 3 a data handler device for transmitting data from at least one of the input ports to at least one of the output ports; a change detector for detecting a necessity for network changes; a message generator device for generating at least one of a network change message and a reconfigured message and for transmitting said messages; a memory for storing data representing network address information; an erasing device for erasing at least a part of said memory, which erasing device is communicatively connected to at least one of the input ports and at least one of the output ports; and an inhibitor device for blocking at least one of the input ports or the output ports; wherein the message generator device, the erasing device and the inhibitor device are controlled by the change detector. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner has rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), IEEE Standard 802.1D (1998) (“IEEE”), Cottreau (US 6,952,396 B1; Oct. 4, 2005), and Yamada (US 2002/0159398 A1; Oct. 31, 2002). Ans. 12-18.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, dated Aug. 14, 2008 (“App. Br.”), the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, dated April 8, 2010 (“Ans.”), Appellants’ Second Supplemental Reply Brief, dated April 26, 2010 (“Supp. Reply Br.”), and Appellants’ Reply Brief, dated Dec. 24, 2008 (“Reply Br.”), which was incorporated by reference into Appellants’ Second Supplemental Reply Brief. See Supp. Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 4 The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Ans. 3-12.2 Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are: 1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest “de-blocking said link in response to a RM [reconfigured message] received from said adjacent node” (App. Br. 12-18; Reply Br. 2)? 2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest “wherein the message generator device, the erasing device and the inhibitor device are controlled by the change detector” (App. Br. 18-20)? 3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention because Appellants’ Specification provides corresponding structure as required under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, for “blocking at least one of the input ports or the output ports” (Supp. Reply Br. 2-3)? 2 The Examiner entered this rejection as a new ground of rejection in the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 3-7. Appellants elected to maintain this appeal, responding to the new rejection in the Second Supplemental Reply Brief. Supp. Reply Br. 2-3. Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 5 ANALYSIS Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants contend that the combination of references fails to teach or suggest “de-blocking said link in response to a RM received from said adjacent node,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12-18. Appellants specifically argue that IEEE does not teach a reconfigured message (RM) as recited in claim 1, and therefore it cannot teach de-blocking a link in response to receiving an RM. App. Br. 13. Further, Appellants argue that even if the Examiner is correct that the combination of AAPA and IEEE inherently requires de-blocking a previously blocked link in order to resume normal operations, the combination does not teach that a link is de-blocked in response to an RM received from the adjacent node. App. Br. 15-16. Finally, Appellants contend that Cottreau fails to teach or suggest either an RM associated with reconfiguration of an adjacent node, or de-blocking a link in response to receiving an RM, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 2. In the Answer, the Examiner notes that an RM signals the end of the reconfiguration process. Ans. 20. The Examiner finds that IEEE teaches transmitting an RM to an adjacent node, id., and the AAPA/IEEE combination inherently requires de-blocking a link in order to resume normal operation. Ans. 13, 19, 21. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the networking art to de-block a link in response to receiving an RM from an adjacent node. Ans. 20. The Examiner further finds that Cottreau suggests a completion signal. Ans. 20-21 (citing Cottreau, col. 17, ll. 30- 45). Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 6 We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the combination of references does not teach or suggest “de-blocking said link in response to a RM received from said adjacent node,” as recited in claim 1. At the outset, we address the interpretation of the claim term “reconfigured message” (or “RM”). The Examiner has interpreted an RM as a message that “signal[s] the . . . end of a reconfiguration process.” Ans. 20. As used in the claims, however, Appellants contend that a reconfigured message is “a message transmitted in response to completion of flushing any old queued messages,” as recited in claim 1 itself. Reply Br. 2. This interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which states that “RM messages indicate to [an adjacent node] that [a node has] finished flushing old queued messages.” Spec. 4, ll. 19-22. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). In view of the claim language and the Specification, we agree with Appellants’ interpretation. Based on this interpretation, we further agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that the combination of references teaches or suggests transmitting an RM to an adjacent node or de-blocking a link in response to an RM received from an adjacent node, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has not identified any teaching in either IEEE or Cottreau of an RM transmitted to or received from an adjacent node indicating completion of flushing of old queued messages. It follows that even if the references disclose (either explicitly or inherently) de-blocking a link, the Examiner has not established that it would have been obvious to de-block a link in response to an RM received from an adjacent node indicating that node has completed flushing old queued messages. Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 7 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 or dependent claims 2-4 and 7. Rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants contend that the combination of references fails to teach or suggest “wherein the message generator device, the erasing device and the inhibitor device are controlled by the change detector.” App. Br. 18-20. The Examiner relies on Cottreau for disclosing this limitation. Ans. 18 (citing Cottreau, col. 14, ll. 50-55). As Appellants correctly argue, however, the cited portion merely describes a Link Integrity Monitor Machine that maintains the status of a link by receiving Link Path Integrity Messages from an upstream node. App. Br. 19. The Examiner has not identified, nor can we find, any teaching in Cottreau that the Link Path Integrity Monitor controls (i) a message generator device for generating network change messages or reconfigured messages, (ii) an erasing device for erasing network address information stored in memory, and (iii) an inhibitor device for blocking input or output ports, as recited in claim 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 5 or dependent claim 6. Rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph The Examiner has determined that the limitation “an inhibitor device for blocking at least one of the input ports or output ports” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Ans. 8-9. Specifically, the Examiner concludes that the presumption against application of § 112, sixth paragraph, for a functional limitation not reciting “means for” has been rebutted because (i) the “claim limitation begins with a term [i.e., “inhibitor device”] Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 8 followed by functional language and the term is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function,” (ii) “the specification does not provide a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art the meaning of the term,” and (iii) “the term is not an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function.” Ans. 9. A claim limitation interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is construed to cover the corresponding structures, materials, or acts disclosed in the specification (and their equivalents) that perform the claimed function. If the specification does not set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Here, the Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification does not describe sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of blocking ports. Ans. 10-11. First, the Examiner finds that Appellants have failed to adequately describe a structure such as a hardware switch capable of performing the function of blocking ports. Ans. 11. Second, the Examiner finds the Specification does not describe a specific algorithm that would transform a general purpose computer into a special purpose computer programmed to perform the recited blocking function. Ans. 11; see Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, the Examiner concludes that claim 5 is indefinite for failure to particularly point out and claim the invention. Ans. 8. In response, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s conclusion that the recited limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Supp. Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 9 Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend, however, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because, in their view, the Specification provides adequate structure for performing the recited blocking function. Id. In particular, Appellants argue that the Specification “depicts an example of a network node including an inhibitor device and associated ports via which blocking is performed, where the node ‘. . . may, for example, be a general purpose computer, a router, a bridge or otherwise.’” Supp. Reply Br. 3 (quoting Spec. 6, ll. 6-8). We agree with the Examiner that the recited limitation is properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, we are unable to agree that Appellants’ Specification fails to provide adequate structure for performing the recited function of blocking ports. The Specification describes the claimed inhibitor device as part of, for example, a router or bridge. Spec. 6, ll. 7-8. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the Specification would recognize a router as a structure capable of performing the recited function of blocking ports and would understand that the claimed inhibitor device is part of that structure. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of cited references. We also conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to Appeal 2010-007984 Application 10/452,626 10 particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 is reversed.3 REVERSED tj 3 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of claim 7, which recites a “computer program product, disposed on a computer-readable storage medium,” the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).